Ãå±±½ûµØ

The application was dismissed. The Tribunal reasoned that in light of staff regulation 1.2(c ) and the Applicant’s job description, reassigning her from one work station to another within UNIFIL was legitimate. Therefore, the impugned decision being a lawful exercise of discretion, there was no basis to rescind it.

Once he was notified that he would not be separated from the Organization, the Aplicant was not entitled to a repatriation grant for his dependents. By allowing his family to travel back to his country of origin regardless, he incurred the liability of an overpayment of the repatriation grant to which he was not entitled. The Organization was entitled to recover the overpayment from the Applicant.

A mere assertion that the Applicant did not receive the notification on 16 November 2016 did not satisfy the requirement to show compliance with statutory deadlines. The reasons given by the Applicant to extend the filing of his application contained a misrepresentation. He suppressed material facts concerning proof of when he received the Management Evaluation Unit notification and that he in fact was not engaged in any formal dispute settlement process with UNFIL involving the United Nations Office of Mediation Services as he alleged. The Applicant was under an obligation to make a full and...

The Applicant was not notified of any indebtedness to the Organization or called upon to settle it, as required by ST/AI/155/Rev.2. The initial withholding did not have the required authorization in the USG/Management’s decision; rather, it was applied in an arbitrary and obscure fashion, with the Applicant learning of it only by the fact that the pension was not forthcoming. It was apparent that, starting with the irregularity of not informing the Applicant of the withholding decision for two months following his separation, the Administration had not seriously undertaken to establish either...

The Applicant was separated from service for submitting false information in three claims for dental treatment to the Medical Insurance Plan provider, Cigna, for reimbursement. The Applicant’s due process rights were respected because during the investigation he was properly informed of the subject and purpose of the interview and afforded sufficient notice. He also had no objections as to the conduct of the interview when asked at the end of his interview. With respect to the claim that the Applicant insisted was, in fact, genuine, the Tribunal concluded that the allegation had not been...